Track 1: Social Europe: Equality and Poverty

Accounting for the devaluation of work in the case of Portugal

Maria da Paz Campos Lima, University Institute of Lisbon, DINÂMIA’CET – IUL
José Castro Caldas, University of Coimbra
Nuno Nunes
João Ramos de Almeida, University of Coimbra

Neoliberal transformations of labour market have generated since the 1980’s continued deterioration of wages and widespread job insecurity contributing, alongside with the process of financialisation for unprecedented levels of inequality since the end of World War II (Schäfer and Streeck, 2013; Piketty, 2014; Alvaredo, 2017). Although the causes of inequality are multidimensional (Therborn, 2013), changes in labour market institutions and shifts in power relations unfavourable to organized labour are major factors explaining growing inequalities (Vaughan-Whitehead, 2017, 2018). They explain to a great extent the transfer of income from labour to capital and the decline of the share of wages in GDP, in Europe and beyond (Karabarbounis and Neiman, 2014; Guschanski and Onaran, 2016; Tridico, 2017; Theodoropolou, 2018).

Following the international crisis and in particular after the 2010 sovereign debt crisis, EU policies and intervention of multilateral institutions intensified austerity and neoliberal policies, in line with a strategy of internal devaluation, where labour and social rights became the variables of adjustment (Pochet and Degryse, 2013; Van Gyes and  Schulten, 2015) in particular in Southern Europe. These policies reconfigured  employment regimes (Gallie, 2013), paving the way for the erosion of institutions related with employment security, unemployment protection, and collective bargaining (Marginson, 2014; Cruces et al, 2015; Koudiadaki et al, 2016). Post crisis debate brought to the front stage the concern of major international institutions with the persistence of economic inequality and slughish wage growth, despite economic growth and employment increase (United Nations, 2015; OECD, 2018; EC, 2018). However, the “knowledge gap” of the lasting effects of past reforms in terms of devaluation of work and growing inequalities persists.

This paper aims to contribute to this debate, scrutinizing the articulation between the internal devaluation strategy and the reconfiguration of the employment regime and cumulative lasting impact on the devaluation of work and income inequality in Portugal, in the last decade. In this decade, the country moved from a cycle of profound economic crisis amplified by neoliberal austerity under troika intervention and a centre right government, to a new, post troika, economic cycle. This new cycle of economic growth and employment increase, coincided since 2015 with a new political cycle with a PS government supported by left parties, commited  to turn the page of austerity, with emphasis on three areas influencing wage growth and reducing inequality:  reversing nominal wage cuts, promoting minimum wage increase, combating precarious work and promoting the inclusiveness of collective bargaining.

The analysis of the lasting effects of devaluation of work and inequality in Portugal will adress the institutional changes following the 2008 international crisis and in particular those observed, under the Troika MoU: reduction of employment protection, facilitating dismissals and precarious work; corrosion of collective bargaining institutions; reduction of unemployment social protection levels; freezing the minimum wage and cuts in public sector nominal wages; and forms of working time flexibility with impact on the decline of hourly wages and overtime payment. The evaluation of the short-term impact of those measures in amplifying the economic crisis and escalating unemployment (Reis et al, 2013), in favouring a trajectory of wage decline (Cruces et al, 2015), in transferring income from labour to capital (Leite et al, 2013), in increasing inequalities and risk of poverty and social exclusion (Campos Lima and Abrantes, 2016) and in the erosion of collective bargaining (Campos Lima, 2017) is documented and corroborated by the most recent studies (ILO, 2018). Medium and long term analysis is missing. In which way the new economic and political cycle halted these negative trends and initiated a positive trajectory, and what obstacles are in the way towards fair and decent wages, remains to be examined in detail.

One clear indication of lasting and cumulative effects of internal devaluation in Portugal refers to the emergent pattern of economic growth - a problem the Financial Times adressed as the “Eurozone’s strange low-wage employment boom” (Schulten and Luebker, 2017). Recent analysis looking at the recovery of employment between 2013 and 2016 gave evidence that the wage depreciation induced a structural change in the Portuguese economy that favored the increase of employment in sectors with wages lower than the national average, thus contributing to an even more pronounced decline of the average real wages in the economy as a whole (Caldas and Almeida, 2018). Finally, one major issue to be adressed is the impact of devaluation of work in the labour share downards trajectory. Recent data (INE, 2018) shows that, in the same period, companies recorded an average annual increase of the gross value added above four percent, while the gross operating surplus rise above the pace of GVA growth, indicated an uneven form of revenue sharing. The weight of remuneration fell from 62.4% to 56.2% in 2016, although, as a whole, the remuneration rose at an annual rate of 5.6%. Understanding this unequal distribution will require to examine the changes within sectors and in the sectoral structure of employment.

The paper will be structured in three sections: Section 1 will examine institutional changes reconfiguring the employment regime and collective bargaining and the evolution of wage levels and various indicators of economic inequality (wealth, incomes and wages) in the period 2008-2017. Section 2 will combine national and sector level data analysis to scrutinize how the lasting effect of internal devaluation operated in terms of influencing the employment growth pattern and changes of employment structure, contributing for wage stagnation or decline; and how internal devaluation operated in terms of generating a downwards labour share trajectory. Section 3 will map wage levels and wage inequality in particular sectors (considering section 2), looking at differences regarding gender/education/qualifications/occupations, type of labour contracts, working time and wage bargaining coverage, in selected years, over a longer period, between 2000-2017, with the objective of capturing long term tendencies of devaluation of work and inequality.

Izabela Florczak, University of Lodz
Barbara Godlewska-Bujok, University of Warsaw
Calogero Massimo Cammalleri, University of Palermo

The presentation provides a rudimentary overview of the underlying causes of the development of the precarious work phenomenon in Europe and analyses the policy and judicatory answers to it at EU level as well as discusses the perspectives for and potential trajectories of the development of an adequate institutional framework against precarity at EU level.

Precarious agreements seem to be the next stage of development of employment relations. At the same time, their axiological layer seems to expose their economic violence-based character. Has the culture of violence we live in today affected what we call the employment relation?

The lack of security produced by the precariat can be seen as a degree of participation of flexibility for firms as “social pollution” i.e. as generator of negative externalities. One proposes a full change of paradigm to fight and to tackle the lack of security at precariat level with a solution in terms of internalisation of externalities (i.e. social costs), rather than affecting precarious work either enlarging the area of employment contract or proposing an intermediate way of regulations.

Annamaria Westregård, Lund University
Valentina Franca, University of Ljubljana

The aim of the presentation is to analyse the consequences of the legal system for different forms of precarious workers, with a focus on employment protection, social security and the work environment and how the legal regulations in labour law and social security law can adapt to the new forms of employment. The impact of the Swedish attempt to improve conditions for precarious workers will be analysed.

In addition, the presentation will analyse i) the challenges precarious work has brought to the Slovenian labour market; ii) the influences it has on the collective employment relations iii) legislative solutions and other measures intended to prevent the abuse of atypical forms of work and iv) possible legal solutions that will provide collective rights to employees in all forms of dependent work.

Isabella Biletta, Eurofound

Drawing on several pieces of research produced by Eurofound in recent years, mapping the situation of employment and working conditions across Member states, this paper analyses the recurrence and consequences of casualisation on European Labour markets.

Since its inception, Eurofound has been studying employment and working conditions in European member states, collecting data through the successive waves of the three European surveys it runs regularly, and especially the European Working conditions Survey. In recent years, several research paths have been followed about atypical forms of work and the characteristics of precarious working situations. Very atypical forms of work, fraudulent working arrangements and new forms of employment have also been part of the analytical corpus. While in 2018, two specific studies on ‘work on demand’ and ‘casual work’ were finalised.

Increasing casualisation of working arrangements is reported. Despite a lack of consistent figures, hiring practices show an increasing use of casual arrangements. On the one hand, these practices allow better adaptation to the nature of the activity, responding to specific sectoral characteristics; on the other hand, they reflect the pressure of reducing labour costs.

Responding to the need for flexibility, various member states reformed their regulation, acknowledging casual forms of work in various ways. Some created new forms of contracting work other amended generic employment regulations. Practices however, go beyond regulatory frameworks leading at times, to misuses of employment arrangements.

Moreover, casual working arrangements structurally impact workers’ rights, businesses fair competition and social cohesion. Primarily aimed at ‘easing’ employment relationships, these forms challenge the working conditions and labour protection of both, casual workers and their counterparts, working under (more) standard arrangements. Against this background, the paper will analyse two main features in current labour markets: business models built around casual forms of work and competition amongst workers.

Improving controls and strengthening casual workers’ voice can help addressing an increased casualisation. However, revisiting the ‘flexibility myth’ would be necessary to fully tackle the issue.

Norwegian employers use of labour. Central and Eastern Europe after the EU-enlargement

Jørgen Svalund, Fafo Institute for Labour and Social Research, Oslo
Rolf Andersen, Fafo Institute for Labour and Social Research, Oslo
Anne Mette Ødegård, Fafo Institute for Labour and Social Research, Oslo

» Full paper: ilera-2019-paper-164-Odegard.pdf

This paper focuses on employers use of East-European workers since the EU enlargement, their motives for recruiting them, and especially whether these workers are hired in precarious positions or over time to a larger degree are hired as permanent employees. Thus, we study whether employer motives change, and whether they to a larger degree hire East European workers as employees rather than through temporary work agencies (TWA) or subcontractors?

National labour market consequences in the aftermath of the EU enlargements in 2004 and 2007 have been widely discussed, and there has been special attention on cross border flow of services and hiring staff through national and foreign temporary agencies, as the access to international labour has led to at drift towards outsourcing of projects and more atypical and flexible work-arrangements (Hassel 2014). The Norwegian labour market is known as an inclusive labour market with limited wage differences, high employment and high levels of mobility (Gallie 2007). Labour adjustment in Norway has traditionally emphasized external flexibility and reallocation of labour from less to more productive companies, as centralized wage bargaining force companies to restructure or go out of business, preventing them from resorting to downward wage competition. The EU-enlargements gave Norwegian companies new opportunities for recruiting labour, and the enlargement has led to a great influx of workers and companies from the new member states in central and Eastern Europe. Over half of the registered migrant workers heading to the Nordic countries from new EU countries in the first years after the enlargement went to Norway, resulting in a “labour supply shock” which had a strong impact on companies’ recruitment and labour strategies (Dølvik & Eldring 2008). A large majority of the Central and Eastern European workers (CEE-workers) have been recruited to low-skilled jobs in construction, manufacturing and private services (cleaning and hotels and restaurants).

Friberg, Arnholtz, Eldring, Hansen og Thorarins (2014) show that the foreign workers/immigrants often were subjected to insecure types of employment; hired through temporary agencies or contracted on a temporary basis. The East-European work immigration has challenged established norms in the labour market, regarding (low) wages, (long) working hours and (poor) health and safety standards, and trade unions and the labour inspectorate have been concerned that the large influx of foreign workers could lead to increased low wage competition and labour market dualisation, at least in some industries. According to Statistics Norway, more than 150 000 Eastern Europeans are living in Norway in 2017. Among these, around 22 000 are born here. On the basis of this development, the main question in this paper is whether companies still use CEE-workers in precarious positions, or whether a larger share of employers employ them in ordinary forms of employment? The EU-enlargement provide a rare possibility to study how and why employers in inclusive labour markets may use migrant workers, and whether employers in such labour market use CEE-workers in insider positions as time go by. As part of this, the paper first investigates Norwegian employers’ motives for recruiting Eastern European workers since the EU-enlargement, and whether these motives have changed between 2006 and 2017. Since the EU-enlargement, several regulations have been introduced to combat exploitation of immigrants from the newest EU-countries. These regulations can be regarded as attempts to prevent a more profound division between “insiders” and “outsiders” in the labour market, and a shift towards dualization, were collective agreements erodes in parts of the private sector, while being intact in other parts of the labour market in Norway. The influx of workers could lead to a dualisation of the labour market in some industries in Norway, with East-European workers holding precarious positions, but it is also possible that the use of these workers change over time, where the CEE-workers to a larger degree hold permanent positions as time go by.

Studying these questions, we use three large employer surveys conducted in construction, manufacturing and hotels and restaurants in 2006, 2009 and 2017, and find that the share of companies who have used employees from the CEE-countries increased from 15 percent in the beginning of the period, before declining between 2009 (35 percent) and 2017 (30 percent). The decline has been largest in manufacturing, probably due to economic shifts and lower demand within ship building/ship yards. The surveys show that a tight labour market, and difficulties recruiting Norwegian or Nordic workers is the main reason for the use of CEE-workers. Since the labour market, and not low wage strategies, were the most important reason for employers use of these workers, one could expect that the probability that employers integrate these workers in their own company increases. The surveys show that the share of companies who have CEE-workers as temporary or permanent employees have increased substantially from 2006 to 2017. Analyzing companies’ probability of only employing CEE-workers individually rather than by way of TWA or subcontracting, the study shows that the probability of only employing CEE-workers on an employment contract have increased between 2006 and 2017, and further, that the probability is highest in hotels and restaurants and lowest in manufacturing.  We also find that companies with a collective agreement to a lower degree hire CEE-workers only through an employment contract.

References

• Dølvik, J. E. & Eldring, L. (2008). Mobility of labour from the new EU states to the Nordic region. Development, trends and consequences. Copenhagen: Nordic Council of Ministers.
• Friberg, J. H., Arnholtz, J., Eldring, L., Hansen, N. W. & Thorarins, F. (2014). Nordic labour market institutions and new migrant workers: Polish migrants in Oslo, Copenhagen and Reykjavik. European Journal of Industrial Relations, 20(1), 37-53. doi:10.1177/0959680113516847
• Gallie, D. (2007). Employment regimes and the quality of work. Oxford ; New York: Oxford University Press.

An analysis of the changing nature of multiple and single jobholding in Europe

Wieteke Conen, University of Amsterdam

The changes that are taking place in today’s labour markets are accompanied by changing employment patterns and a hybridisation of work in many advanced economies. The rise of the gig economy and freelancing contribute to the demise of the standard employment relation (the permanent labour contract) and the rise of a wide range of non-standard employment relations, including flexible contracts, self-employment and hybrid work. This new organisation of work leads to a more flexible, insecure and fragmented nature of contemporary labour. Hybridisation of work in the context of our study refers to workers holding several dependent employment relationships at the same time, or combining dependent employment and self-employment activities. We analyse whether multiple jobholders (MJH) are more precarious as compared to single jobholders (SJH) in either dependent employment or self-employment.

On the one hand, it can be argued that changing product and labour markets, diffusion of information technology and participative management strategies – amongst others – have led to job enrichment and mutual improvements for both workers and employers (Handel, 2005; Greenan et al., 2013). This view is related to post-Fordist theory and mutual gain literature, arguing that new work systems have improved the quality of work, for instance in terms of intrinsic rewards (such as job challenge and autonomy), working conditions (such as decreased physical workload) and material rewards (such as wages). In contrast, the more critical Neo-Fordist view argues that any (limited) gains that may have accrued to workers are outweighed by increased effort requirements and insecurity. Recent changes in labour markets and work organizations have created greater work pressure and for many workers material conditions (such as pay and job security) have deteriorated (Handel, 2005; Kalleberg, 2009; Greenan et al., 2013). Previous historical-comparative studies show mixed results regarding various dimensions of the quality of work (e.g. Clark, 2005; Handel, 2005; Brown, 2008; Olsen, 2010), but rather consistent trends have been found in terms of a deterioration in the area of work intensity and physical and emotional strain (Clark, 2005; Brown, 2008; Greenan et al, 2013; Lopes et al, 2014) (for an overview, see Conen and De Beer, 2018).

In this study we focus on precariousness versus self-sufficiency of MJH as compared to SJH. Precarious employment has been defined, conceptualised and examined in several ways and encompasses various dimensions (cf. D’Amours and Crespo, 2004; Stone, 2006; Vosko, 2006; Kalleberg, 2011). In this study we focus on material conditions as reflected in the extrinsic dimension (such as pay) as well as non-pecuniary aspects. We study a) the structure and trends in terms of occurrence, working hours and quality of work among MJH and b) compare this to dependently employed and self-employed SJH. To that end, we analyse data from the EU Labour Force Survey (from year 2000 onwards on the structure and characteristics of MJH and SJH) and Statistics on Income and Living Conditions (from year 2005 onwards, including information on wages, household income, material deprivation and self-reported quality of work and life) at the personal, job and household level.

Keywords: Employment, extrinsic rewards, intrinsic rewards, moonlighting, multiple jobholding, quality of work

Rethinking the European Union’s new economic governance regime and labour politics

Jamie Jordan, De Montfort University, Leicester
Vincenzo  Maccarrone, University College Dublin
Roland Erne, University College Dublin

» Full paper: ilera-2019-paper-157-Jordan.pdf

One of the key responses from the European Union (EU) to the global financial and sovereign debt crises has been to overhaul its economic governance regime. The former Commission President, Jose Manuel Barroso, went even as far as to label the shift to the EU’s New Economic Governance (NEG) regime a ‘silent revolution’.  In this paper, we propose a new approach for the analysis of NEG and examine the question whether we are really witnessing a progressive socialisation of its policy content, as an emerging literature claims.

We do this through three key steps. The first step is to offer a new way of thinking about the institutional structure of the NEG regime, especially the so-called European Semester, which, thus far, has primarily reflected the EU’s own understanding of it across various academic literatures. The second step is to propose a methodological innovation in how to evaluate the policy orientations and prescriptions stemming from the NEG regime. Whereas most studies about the EU’s Country Specific Recommendations (CSRs) treat each prescription as equal, as if they exist in an institutional vacuum, we instead take into account the varying degrees of constraint that are attributable to NEG prescriptions as they relate to the broader institutional structure they are embedded within. Hence, the more precise and enforceable a NEG prescription is the more significant it becomes. Furthermore, our analysis also accounts for the location member states find themselves in across the uneven but deeply integrated European political economy, as otherwise similar NEG policy prescriptions can take on very different meanings from differentiated positions within this structured environment.

This allows us, in a third step, to apply our conceptual and methodological innovations to a contextualised analysis of close to 100 NEG document issued between 2010-2018 for the Eurozone as a whole, Germany, Italy, Ireland and Romania, i.e. for different locations of the EU’s uneven but deeply integrated political economy. Focusing on policy areas affecting labour politics, including wages, labour markets and collective bargaining, our findings demonstrate that there has not been a progressive socialisation of the Semester. Instead, a pro-business policy paradigm is still dominant over any social(ising) considerations, despite the more positive assessment of the NEG made by EU social policy think tanks, such as the Observatoire Social European, or the European Trade Union Confederation. We therefore conclude our paper with some reflections that problematise these dissonances and discuss possible future (research) orientations on the EU’s NEG regime and labour politics.

The new European labour market policy after the crisis and the impact of the national labour markets

Felix Syrovatka, University of Tübingen

» Full paper: ilera-2019-paper-7-Syrovatka.pdf

The architecture of the European Union has changed in the past years of crisis and its constitutional crisis management. The different bricks of the European austerity policy have built a European system of control to supervise the economic policy on the national level. In the centre of this system there is a new mechanism of labour market policy control and interventionism. I call this mechanism the New European Labour Market Policy because its based on the old instruments of the European employment policy but its more binding and stronger. Before the crisis, the European Labour market policy was only symbolic and equipped with “soft” instruments. After the crisis, the New European Labour Market Policy got binding instruments and “hard” recommendations. The implementation of crisis-constitutional measures created opportunities for direct european influence on the national labour markets. This influence is evidently not only an indirect intervention in the area of labour market regulation and wage policy, but also a way to indirectly- for example via the country specific recommendations (CSR) - initiate or request reforms in the member states. The influence of the EU institutions on national labour market regulations is ensured through two different methods that justify the different quality of interventionism. On the one hand, the influence via the CSR takes place within the framework of the European Semester, which has been given a new binding force by the introduction of financial sanctioning mechanisms. On the other hand, there is influence over the exchange of financial support for political reforms.

In this way, I see the New Labour Market policy as an interaction of formal and informal, institutionalized and non-institutionalized, economic and socio-political forms of regulation, surveillance and enforcement. The content frame of this instruments is the common focus on European competitiveness as a lever to solve the European crisis. Accordingly, the New European Labour Market Policy concentrates on a reduction of unit labour costs to boost European competitiveness. Therefore, a new leading concept of New European Labour Market Policy was created. The flexicurity-concept, the former leading concept, has been replaced by the resilience concept, which is embedded in a comprehensive strategy of the European Union. At the same time, the concept represents a neoliberal radicalization. In the area of labour market policy, the resilience-concept is aiming for marketisation and much more flexibilization whereas the security dimension of Flexicurity doesn’t exist anymore.

The presentation aims to show the transformation of New European Labour Market Policy in crisis and which changes in content were associated with it. At the same time, it will explain how the New European Labour market policy works and which different influences the European interventions have on the national labour market policies.

Original expectations and deficiencies of implementation, some political remedies and the lasting political stalemate

Berndt Keller, University of Konstanz
Sophie Rosenbohm, Institute for Work, Skills and Training, University of Duisburg-Essen

The paper deals with the widely neglected failures of the implementation of the European Company Statute (SE Regulation and SE Directive) and their far-reaching consequences. It intends to shed light on new forms and concepts of employment relations at European level. With its provisions on employee involvement, the European Company Statute was supposed to set new grounds for the development of European industrial relations and, thus, to constitute an integrated part of ‘social Europe’

Initially, it was planned to establish a unitary system of employee participation by means of binding legislation at EU level. These ambitious plans of ‘upward harmonization’ had to be changed towards expanding degrees of flexibility and the primacy of negotiated agreements at individual company level. The protection of national systems with established rights was, however, a core issue in the contested debate over the SE Directive. Facilitating deviations from well-established standards has been by no means an intended consequence.

In contrast to existing studies, originally unexpected outcomes and/or definitely non-intended consequences have occurred but so far received hardly any attention. Therefore, our special emphasis is on these rather extraordinary long-term developments. Based on most recent empirical data on SEs and a critical review of research results, we will discuss major unexpected results of transposition and implementation and their evident problems. Moreover, we will analyse why no political measures have been taken and discuss options for amendments and improvements.

Our research demonstrates that there are serious deficiencies at different levels, the SE Directive itself, transposition laws at national level as well as implementation procedures at company level. The original substance of the SE Directive that already represents the smallest common political denominator is watered down by unanticipated strategies that lead to non-intended outcomes. The preemptive escape from participation, that occurred in some companies, was definitely not intended by the SE Directive. A similar problem concerns the activation of non-operational shelf SEs. The SE Directive contains provisions only for the date of establishment but no unambiguous requirements for later developments although they may have negative repercussions. Thus, the current version of the ‘before and after’ principle, which was originally introduced to safeguard existing employee participation rights, can also have the opposite consequence.

If the existing deficiencies are not removed they have long lasting consequences, exert substantial impact at lower levels and put the initial objectives at risk. This poses a major threat for building a ‘social Europe’ with the capacity to provide sufficient information, consultation and participation rights for employees.

As discussed in the paper, the aim should be to close existing legal loopholes, avoid obvious inconsistencies and guarantee that the goals that are indicated in the SE Directive are to be actually reached. One major gap of the SE Directive is the fact that it does not provide specific rules for the possibility that higher numbers of employees are reached after the formation of the SE or for the activation of a shelf SE. Therefore, the Directive needs to be amended and adopted in some focal regards. It needs more dynamic concepts instead of the existing static ones. Our proposals for re-regulation intend to remedy existing deficiencies. We elaborate on the most urgent groups: Structural changes and their consequences as well as the activation of non-operational shelf SEs.

The solution is indeed that this principle should be extended by its explicit introduction into the Directive. Such provisions could also be negotiated at individual company level or prescribed in national transposition laws. However, these latter options occur only rarely and do not constitute functional equivalents of rules in the Directive that are generally valid. More recently no political initiative has been taken to amend the SE Directive and Regulation. The resulting problem is that the longer necessary amendments are not initiated the more originally unintended effects occur and not intended opportunities of pattern setting and pattern following are not only established but continued and even strengthened. Thus, for the time being, the only realistic alternative consists in adjustments at national level, i.e. in substantial amendments of national transposition laws.

A comparative analysis of recent EU interventions in Italy, Ireland and Switzerland

Vincenzo Maccarrone, University College Dublin
Roland Erne, University College Dublin

The literature about the effects of the European integration process on labour and labour relations can broadly be divided into two opposing camps. On the one side, there are those who associate the European integration process with an overarching, transnational liberalisation trajectory (Baccaro & Howell 2017). On the other side, there are those who are detecting diverging, country specific, trajectories at work. Pulignano (2018), for example, acknowledges a growing commodification of labour in the EU’s periphery, not least given the imposition of the “structural reforms” championed by the Eurozone’s New Economic Governance (NEG) regime. At the same time, however, she is also emphasising the relative stability of de-commodifying labour institutions in affluent North-Western European countries, notably Denmark, which is not subject to the constraints and conditionalities of the Eurozone’s NEG regime. In a similar vein, Afonso, Fontana and Papadopoulos (2010), for example, showed that in the case of Switzerland, further integration into the European single market led, until very recently, to an astonishing decommodification of Swiss labour market institutions. This assessment, however, might no longer be true.

In this paper we therefore conduct a comparative qualitative analysis of the strikingly similar labour market liberalisation requests of the European Commission in relation to the Irish, Italian and Swiss labour market institutions issued in very different institutional contexts. These include the Commission’s commodifying NEG prescriptions for Ireland and Italy (2010-2018), i.e. a large and a small Eurozone country, which are in the (semi-) periphery of the Eurozone. In addition, however, we are also analysing the Commission requests to liberalise the Swiss labour market institutions during the ongoing negotiations for an EU Switzerland “Institutional framework agreement”, which aims to cementing future ties between Switzerland and its biggest trading partner. This case selection is innovative as it allows us to assess if the Commission’s labour market liberalisation requests are linked predominately to Eurozone membership and the relative peripheral location of a country in European supply and production chains, or simply the EU’s new single market logic as expressed in the ECJ judgments in the Laval quartet.

• Afonso, A., Fontana, M. C., & Papadopoulos, Y. (2010). Does Europeanisation weaken the Left? Changing coalitions and veto power in Swiss decision-making processes. Policy & Politics, 38(4), 565-582.
• Baccaro, L., & Howell, C. (2017). Trajectories of Neoliberal Transformation: European Industrial Relations Since the 1970s. Cambridge University Press.
• Pulignano, V (2018), “Social Dialogue between Continuity and Discontinuity”. Presentation at the WSI Herbstforum 2018: Interessenvertretung der Zukunft. Berlin, 20 November 2018. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8BzsAmvZISs